The appellant argues that a trier of fact cannot use such evidence to assess the general credibility of the accused by inferring from the bad character of the accused that she is not likely to tell the truth.

But the judge being the trier of fact has heard the evidence of Savvas and has presumably formed at least a tentative view about the credibility of Savvas.

And I do not accept, that at this stage of the proceedings, the fact the trier of fact is a judge alone rather than a jury makes any difference.